Friend Kevin has written"
>As a democratic socialist I must correct you - if schools were socialists
>they would be very intellectually creative. Instead, schools are
>totalitarian. The number one rule: follow directions. Self-direction thus
>violates school rules. We learn to obey the orders from our adult
>overseers. Tyranny, much?
While I graciously bow to my colleague, as a Free Marketeer, I must correct
him.
First of all, I find it a rather sweeping statement that if "schools were
socialistic they'd be intellectually creative." Let's qualify that: If SOME
schools were, that might be true. But to suggest generally that schools by
their nature are tyrannical is specious IMHO.
Case in point [with absolutely no defensiveness implied or inferred]: I
teach college at a small private university whose credo is free enterprise,
individual responsibility, and the value of values. It is in no way within
the classroom totalitarian. I have been teaching Pirsig for over seven
years now, watching the "scales fall from the eyes" of many students.
I would respectfully posit the idea that in this case, it is some students
who are the progenitors of totalitarianism: They have been taught by many
educators (who make a living out of chasing tenure, then merely rest upon
their laurels and hardy backsides, doing just enough research to "get by")
to follow the rules, play it straight, et al.
And so by the time many universities get ahold of their minds, they are
dealing with only particially set intellectual Jell-O. How often do we
professors get the opportunity to reward divergent thinking and internal
motivation by students who are not content with "getting by" but actually
strive for more out of the sake of joyful learning?
Do you really want an answer?
Okay, too few. I personally would have a mental orgasm if an entire class
of students latched onto Pirsig's ideas and ran with them. And I'm into
capitalism as something positive.
Now, I do agree with you, Kevin, on a couple points:
>It is a common misconception that schools don't teach values. After reading
>Lila, we should all understand that nothing can be valueless and that
>objectivity is a myth. Schools revel in that myth while actually teaching
>hidden lessons inherent within the school power structure.
Yes indeed: I agree.
But [everybody I know's got a big "but"]--
That we must
>submit to authority that we are powerless to change is one hidden lesson.
>That Skinner-type behaviorism works to control motivation is another. That
>competition and individual work is better than cooperation is another. That
>learning is boring is yet another.
Here's where two paths diverge from a wood.
At our university, again focusing on the free market, we teach in just about
every class that people are not rats in a maze (this is nice Existentialism,
but not practical in today's larger business context), but they are
responsible individuals whose actions have a direct result on outcomes.
That competition can sometimes be dangerous, at the very least
demotivational. That lifelong learning is a prerequisite for a full [read:
Quality] life.
In many ways, the students themselves come in with the perception that
learning is boring. And that, my friend, is one tough monkey to remove from
their backs.
>Since I have only lived for 17 revolutions of the Earth
>around the sun, I believe that adult society oppresses youths.
I appreciate that perception. To some degree I could almost agree with it.
Let's face it: It is nearly built in to the pre-twenty-seven-year old that
the "Establishment" is oblique, narrow, boring and (pardon the expletive,
here sanitized for your protection) "intercoursed-up." After a while, you
may see that youthful enthusiasm and mistrust to be misplaced, for you are
now part of it. I am reminded of Jerry Rubin going to work for Madison
Avenue because his ability with a well-turned phrase worked so well in
advertising. Wow, when I turned thirty, I found I couldn't "trust" myself
anymore, since my mythos taught "Never trust anyone over thirty."
Educators,
>pedatrists, child psychologists, industrial plants all benefit from
>segregating youths. So when they started creating the ephebiphobic
>(stigmatization of youths) mindset, the culture followed. Many have posited
>the same reasoning behind slavery (i.e. slavery was first economic, then
>racist - not vis versa.) Once ephebiphobia was entrench in our society,
>adults began to place youths in schools which are peer-graded and isolate
>them away from adult contact.
With all due respect: Monkey muffins.
This kind of conspiracy pontification sounds like a healthy dose of Pink
Floyd. . . which would validate the socialism. BTW: Pink Floyd and their
"We don't need no education" anthemic reasoning are favorites of mine and
have been since "Ummagumma." But I guess I don't consider capitalism to be
part of that malaise.
Once youths were placed in peer cultures, they only related to
>other youths, who were not much more intelligent than themselves.
Sure. Because people like being in groups similar to their own interests.
(MOQ groups, et al.)
"Cliques"
>only relate to biological tribes because society segregates us from social
>realms.
Please. . . can we not blame "Society" for everything? That's a wonderful
high level abstraction. Individuals congregate.
Government is a lot more efficient.
>Competition only leads to a race to the bottom; quality doesn't increase.
>Quality costs too much money for the private sector so instead they improve
>aspects of their business that don't cost as much - adverstising
>expecially.
Government is more cost-effective? Which government? I think I'd prefer to
buy a wrench at the local Tools 'R' Us for $13 than be a member of Congress
and buy the same one for $1.3 million. . . . . Why would anyone want to give
up his/her freedom to the externally dictatorial government? Does the word
"taxation" mean anything?
The reason people think government has failed in education is
>becayse they're still using totalitarian teaching methods which never
>really motivate students. All students strive for is rewards like grades,
>but they don't really care about the subjects being taught. >
On another hand. . . .
>: This is why I believe the MoQ supports a small, mostly Static
>: government, with a huge, competing, Dynamic free market.
Hear hear!
>
We need to
>break down the power structures which have gotten too out of hand for the
>common person to control.
[Applause] Like big government!
Wow, I'd better quit while I think we're in agreement.
Thanks for the opportunity to converse, Kevin. Take your ability to discuss
with you, should you decide to be college-bound. You might surprise yourself
by finding SOME professors who are not puppets of oppression and boring
tweed-mongers on tenure.
Jeff
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST